Author
Topic: humans, part of the natural world or seperate? (Read 11132 times)

We can "only" be a part of the natural world. Whether that is conciously realised is another matter.

I believe this discussion, taking place on the web is actually part of the "disconnect from nature" that has been going on for a very long time. Remember; one of the reasons provided for why witches were burned in Europe during the Dark Ages?

A majority of western culture is fearful/mis-trustful of nature. I don't believe that its accidental.

Kathyp; "evil" is a term best left to discribe human behavoir.

"My opinion" is that only humans are capable of evil and adhere to Vine Delorias philosophy that when we're gone the world will be just fine w/out us.

thomas

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

bigbearomaha

much the same way you sought out the terms to support your perspective. please you don't fool anyone. if you want to be offended, it's your choice, but don't go looking for it where it isn't.

You don't need to try to read into what my post means Mike, I spelled it out for you. I said exactly what I meant.

Quote

I understand your points trying to be made. I think perhaps you are trying to make some comparison of those environmentalist and others who think they know better than others, demand from others by zoning and codes designed to "save ourselves", and everything else that limits freedom.

But being a good steward of the earth, or anything else, does not automatically assign "superiority". You can be in charge of your own backyard (being a steward of your property) without negative connotations being thrown that you are superior to another person.

and there, in a nutshell without all the other argumentative claptrap you have inserted is exactly what I said. if it makes you feel better to hear your own voice, so be it.

and please go back and read my post carefully mike, I NEVER said being a steward was always a bad thing. it must be something you inferred. I said in the circumstance of human interaction with the natural world in general, I do not believe "steward" is an appropriate term of relationship.

I know how much fun it is for you to pick and choose what you read so you can make mountains out of molehills, everyone needs a hobby.

I will say that I have said my piece as specifically as I can here and you have essentially agreed in the quoted piece above. To wit, our (as in you and I) discussion is done. Please don't be offended (or be offended if you so choose to) if I choose not to respond to any further arguing you might choose to pursue.

I believe we are a part of the natural world, and I believe for the most part we control it. The human race is in a position to dominate the natural world. Yes other species can have some impact on the world around them but nothing like humans. Elephants keep the forest from over taking the savannah by knocking trees down to feed on the leaves. Insect might decimate grasslands. But neither of these can have the effect of a man with a bulldozer or hunters for the fashion industry. Man has set himself apart from the natural world as the supreme link. Man is the only part of the natural world that can totally remove another species. And because of that we must fill the role of manager of the natural world, if you will.

Some people do not want to see dead deer or have a hand in hunting of deer. But we must hunt deer. Why is that you ask? Because in most of the deer’s home range man has removed all hunters of deer we saw the predators as a threat. We destroyed the balance. Now you have deer eating Aunt Betsy’s garden to the ground, jumping through windows, and crashing into cars. Deer are having a population explosion all because we removed all the natural predators and now we do not want to shoot bambi. So, because we destroyed the balance it is up to us to create a balance. You might go so far as to call us stewards of the environment.

much the same way you sought out the terms to support your perspective. please you don't fool anyone. if you want to be offended, it's your choice, but don't go looking for it where it isn't.

You don't need to try to read into what my post means Mike, I spelled it out for you. I said exactly what I meant.

Quote

I understand your points trying to be made. I think perhaps you are trying to make some comparison of those environmentalist and others who think they know better than others, demand from others by zoning and codes designed to "save ourselves", and everything else that limits freedom.

But being a good steward of the earth, or anything else, does not automatically assign "superiority". You can be in charge of your own backyard (being a steward of your property) without negative connotations being thrown that you are superior to another person.

and there, in a nutshell without all the other argumentative claptrap you have inserted is exactly what I said. if it makes you feel better to hear your own voice, so be it.

and please go back and read my post carefully mike, I NEVER said being a steward was always a bad thing. it must be something you inferred. I said in the circumstance of human interaction with the natural world in general, I do not believe "steward" is an appropriate term of relationship.

I know how much fun it is for you to pick and choose what you read so you can make mountains out of molehills, everyone needs a hobby.

I will say that I have said my piece as specifically as I can here and you have essentially agreed in the quoted piece above. To wit, our (as in you and I) discussion is done. Please don't be offended (or be offended if you so choose to) if I choose not to respond to any further arguing you might choose to pursue.

enjoy the bees.

Are you for real?

I simply asked for a clarification while expressing my own views.

Look in the mirror dude! You create your own clap trap by assuming the worst, and attack others by some stick you got wedged.

I believe we are a part of the natural world, and I believe for the most part we control it. The human race is in a position to dominate the natural world. Yes other species can have some impact on the world around them but nothing like humans. Elephants keep the forest from over taking the savannah by knocking trees down to feed on the leaves. Insect might decimate grasslands. But neither of these can have the effect of a man with a bulldozer or hunters for the fashion industry. Man has set himself apart from the natural world as the supreme link. Man is the only part of the natural world that can totally remove another species. And because of that we must fill the role of manager of the natural world, if you will.

Some people do not want to see dead deer or have a hand in hunting of deer. But we must hunt deer. Why is that you ask? Because in most of the deer’s home range man has removed all hunters of deer we saw the predators as a threat. We destroyed the balance. Now you have deer eating Aunt Betsy’s garden to the ground, jumping through windows, and crashing into cars. Deer are having a population explosion all because we removed all the natural predators and now we do not want to shoot bambi. So, because we destroyed the balance it is up to us to create a balance. You might go so far as to call us stewards of the environment.

What even is the "natural world"? When I hear the term, I assume the person asking is talking about anything that isn't manufactured or created by man. I'd guess that other than living like a caveman and eating raw meat, that answer would be no.

How does this discussion play into beekeeping? There are a lot of people that are totally into "natural" beekeeping as the best way, but nothing we can do is going to be "natural".

Speaking of that...very little that we grow and eat is natural. I've never seen a natural cow or chicken in the woods. Never seen a wild corn, bean, or tomato plant. Natural apple trees are horrid. I really wonder why we think that beekeeping has to be so natural...maybe because it is one of the only managed "livestock" that really survives and thrives out there?

CONTROL; It is an illusion we use to justify "having it (everything) our way." We control very little really, just our waking selves, maybe our sleeping selves too, but we are very buzy running around "controlling" (mostly distroying) everything around us, people, places and things. We can't help it. :'(

Validating the illusion; Its how abusers (of all kinds) keep their victims in line.

thomas

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

There are side effects to our creations, but there always are. I sure wouldn't consider some cumulative side effects to be "distroying"!! Realizing those effects and mitigating them is a key to stewardship.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

I've seen a lot of nature all over the world that humans haven't destroyed. A lot of ocean also. Impacted? maybe. Destroyed? We are a long way from destroying everything. The world is still full of life despite our best efforts to poison it. Yes, efforts. Purposeful poisons to kill all the insects, all the broadleaf plants...

If you ever watched a Beaver family, though they tend to rework nature to their liking as well. They will turn a woods into lake and then into a meadow. If you like woods, then I'd say they are pretty desructive...

T Beek, you have a pretty warped view of humanity and our activities. many people think a clear cut is a blight. they only fly over them. in fact, they are some of the most beautiful and full of life places in the woods. silver mining with water jets tore down mountians in ca, but helped create fantastic farm land down the sacramento river. we discovered how to create a nuclear reaction and could have destroyed the world, but it is used for power, medical advances, etc. yes, we can do bad things, but we tend to self correct. the more we learn the better life gets for all. we learn to grow better crops, we feed the world. we learn better meds, we beat disease that used to kill.

it is amazing to me that those who think man is so evil, don't want that evil attached to themselves. man is evil...except for me....i recycle.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

The mining? You use transportation that is made of metal.The forest? Your domicile is likely created of wood (or if metal, see above)The touching? You touch your bee hives, the life around you.The taking? most of the time this is attributed to americans, I'm assuming you are one.The chemicals in the atmosphere? You are using a computer that uses energy, that uses rare elements that are difficult to obtain (read: polluting, caustic, difficult to obtain, so mining is extreme)

I guess I don't understand. You are complicit in any perceived destruction as much as anybody. If humanity is that bad, why haven't you headed off into a forest to die under an oak tree yet to mitigate your damage to mother earth yet?

Maybe your horrible experiences gave you a different unique viewpoint, but if so I'd guess those were an exception, not the norm of human experience. I know I'll never convince you, but it is an interesting arguement and is very foreign to me.

I practice acceptance and kindness in my endeavors as well, but I'm not so foolish to accept a cowfield so much that I close my eyes as I walk across it.